Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

Equipped with this complex structure, the Hitchin moduli space can be thought of as the space of stable Higgs G-bundles

(14)MHit(G,C)I≃Mstable(G,C).

2) For w=−i the holomorphic differentials are

(15)δAz+iδϕzδAz¯+iδϕz¯.

This defines the complex structure called J.

In this case we can think of the Hitchin moduli space as that of stable flat Higgs bundles for the complexified gauge group

(16)MHit(G,C)J≃Mstable, flat(Gℂ,C).

3) Finally, the third basic complex structure is the product of the first two

(17)K=IJ.

This corresponds to w=−1 .

The Hitchin moduli space has an action of S1 by isometries which leave I invariant and rotate J and K via ϕz↦eiαϕz.

Given any complex structure Iw, we can define an A model and a B model. But actually, what we get here is not always just an A-model or just a B-model, but in general a mixture of them.

So recall how the twistig is accomplished.

We start with a 2D conformal theory with stress-energy tensor

(18)T(z):=Tzz(z)T¯(z¯):=T¯z¯z¯(z)

and with R-currents J(z) and J¯(z¯).

Twisting is accomplished by performing the replacement

(19)T↦T+1 2 ∂zJT¯↦T¯+1 2 ∂¯z¯J¯.

the point is that the precise nature of the R-current depends on the complex structure that we choose.

Hence, there is a whole sphere of R-currents. The most general twist possible is denoted Jw+ and J¯w−,
depending on two parameters

(20)(w+,w−)∈ℂP1 ×ℂP1 .

In order to obtain the pure A-model we set

(21)Iw+=−Iw−

corresponding to w+=−1 w¯−.

The pure B-model is obtained for w+=w−. In general, the twist yields neither of these.

We need to define the map between our twisting parameters w+ and w− and the parameter t from before. It turns out that the relation is

(22)w+=−tw−=t−1 .

The A-model corresponds to t∈ℝ, the B-model to t=±i.

(Side remark: this is obtained by studying the adiabatic limit of the BPS equations.)

Next, Kapustin draw a couple of pictures depicting the sphere of complex structures, the equator of A-model twists and the B-model north and south poles. I won’t try to reproduce these here. See figure 1 on p. 21 of the Witten-Kapustin paper (→).

The important point is, that, as we had seen in the previous talk, S-duality sends t=i to t=1 . This relates

(23)A−model ofMHit(G,C)K≃B−model ofMHit(GL,C)J.

The rest of the lecture was concerend with making contact to the Strominger-Yau-Zaslow picture of mirror symmetry (→).

One expects, due to their work, that the target space on each side of the duality has a fibration by Lagrangian tori What is this fibration?

MHit(G,C) fibers over an affine space of half the total dimension, with the generic fiber being a torus.

This fibration is complex with respect to I and Lagrangian with respect to J and K.

Let the gauge group be G=GL(n). Then we get

(24)MHit(G,C)p↓V=⊕k=1 nH0 (C,KCk),

where the projection p works like

(25)p:(A,ϕ)↦trϕzk.

So let’s run the SYZ argument. Consider a point

(26)q∈MHit(GL,C)≃Mflat connections(GℂL,C)

and regard this as a 0-brane for the σ-model,

(27)ϕ(∂Σ)=q.

This is a B-brane, since a point is a reasonable D-brane in any complex structure, hence it is in particular one with respect to J.

The S-dual of this B-brane is an A-brane on the mirror manifold
MHit(G,C)K. This is a Lagrangian submanifold, actually a fiber of the Hitchin fibration.

From the gauge theory it follows that the A-brane must sit over the fiber of the Hitchin fibration, so it follows that the A-brane must equal that fiber.

Hence fibers p−1 (p(q)) must parameterize flat connections on the fiber of the dual p−1 L(p(q)).

So to any fat GℂL-connection on C, S-duality associates an A-brane on MHit(G,C).

Compare this to geometric Langlands (→), where one associates a D-module on the moduli stack of G-bundles Bun(G,C).

In fact, to any A-brane we can associate a D-module. A-branes are eigen-objects (→) of the symplectic Hecke operator.

Posted at June 17, 2006 9:30 AM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/845